Author Archive

Republicans Have Compromised; Obama Has Not

by Frank Salvato on Monday, July 25th, 2011

This is article 60 of 522 in the topic Government Spending

The Obama Administration, Congressional Progressives and Democrats, and the mainstream media have done a fantastic job of controlling the narrative in the debt ceiling/budget debate. They have hammered home, in an almost Goebbels-esque manner, the false notion that Republicans have not “compromised on their partisan ideals”; that the GOP is, to use their talking point, “intransigent.” This is nothing short of exactly the opposite from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that House Speaker John Boehner, and a majority of the House and Senate Republican contingents, have compromised, and have done so on a major issue: raising the debt ceiling.

Looking back on the 2010 Mid-Term Election, those concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility executed by our elected class stated loud and clear, in the only poll that matters – the poll at the ballot box, that we wanted the federal government to employ fiscal restraint. In many cases, those whose names were on the ballot, indicated that they finally – finally – got the message. Even Harry Reid (D-NV), ran on a platform that included support for a balanced budget amendment. They said time and time again, at rallies and fundraisers that they understood that the American people were demanding dramatically reduced spending, an honest effort to reduce debt and an abdication of status quo partisan politics, at least until the country’s fiscal health was on the mend.

Fast-Forward to today.

The elected class on the Left side of the aisle, but for a very few, have once again exhibited the status quo Janus face of political skullduggery. They have abandoned the stance of fiscal responsibility only to embrace their neo-traditional role of Progressive partisan. They feign an advocacy for reducing expenditures when in fact they are actually advancing increased expenditures in a reduced manner from what they would prefer. Over a dozen Democrats who actually ran on a platform supporting a balanced budget amendment – including Senate Majority Leader Reid – abandoned their promises to their constituents in voting down ‘Cut, Cap and Balance,’ a bill Mr. Reid called, “the stupidest constitutional amendment I’ve ever seen.”

Conversely – and most importantly as we move forward – Republicans who ran on fiscal responsibility, who insisted that they heard the American voter in the 2010 election, have taken their seats at the negotiating table in good faith, in contrast to their counterparts. In the spirit of ingenuous compromise, Republicans acquiesced to raising the debt ceiling, an action their constituents firmly stated, via the ballot box, they did not want them to do; Republicans compromised on their principles by entertaining the notion of raising the debt ceiling. What they asked for in return – what they wanted in compromise from Democrats, Progressives and Mr. Obama – was a commitment to honor the fiscal responsibility mandated by the American people: reduced spending with caps, entitlement reforms and a mechanism to make sure the federal government, both of the present and in the future, follows through on these promises: a balanced budget amendment that could be debated at the State level.

Click to continue reading “Republicans Have Compromised; Obama Has Not”
Go straight to Post

If Debt Is the Enemy Then There Are Traitors Among Us

by Frank Salvato on Friday, July 22nd, 2011

This is article 70 of 522 in the topic Government Spending

The so-called “debt ceiling default crisis” continues to loom, with enough Progressive-Leftist demagoguery in the air to choke a horse, or, in this case, kill an economy. I roll my eyes at the term “debt ceiling default crisis” because the honest man – an increasingly rare species in federal government – understands that there can only be a crisis should President Obama choose to create one. That said, Republicans, TEA Partiers and Conservatives are in danger of doing the right thing in refusing to enable more debt, but losing the public relations war to what amounts to the traitors among us due to chronic messaging impotency.

According to the Daily Treasury Statements, approximately sixty percent of every dollar gleaned by the US government comes to it in the form of revenue generated by taxes. This amounts to roughly $200 billion a month. Given that the debt interest due per month is approximately $29 billion, even a third grader from an under-achieving inner-city Atlanta public school can deduce that there is absolutely no possibility of the United States defaulting on its debt interest payments. The “debt ceiling default crisis” is not so much; it is a ruse, a canard, a fallacy…it is a lie.

Doing some simple math – again, at a level understood by an Atlanta public school third grader – we subtract $29 billion from $200 billion to find that we have $171 billion a month left over with which to pay off other debts, liabilities and operational costs incurred by the federal government.

Now, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, during any given month, Social Security outlays equal approximately $49.2 billion, and Medicare and Medicaid payments total about $50 billion. Subtracted from the $171 billion remaining after payment on debt interest, that leaves the federal government, each month, with $71.8 billion left to spend.

So, if the government employs a prioritized debt payment schedule – which, pathetically and due completely to political opportunism, they do not – there should be absolutely no chance of the federal government defaulting on debt interest payments, Social Security payments or Medicare and Medicaid payments. With this understood we can safely declare that a fiscally responsible administration would have no reason – other than political gain – to deny seniors and Social Security recipients their payments.

Now, what can be done with the remaining $71.8 billion that the government gleans each month from tax revenue alone (remember, this does not include money they insist they have to borrow)?

The federally elected spendthrifts can pay $2.9 billion in active military salaries and another $2.9 billion for Veteran’s Affairs and still have $66 billion on hand. From there they can pick any number of liabilities to fund: IRS refunds, food stamps and welfare, unemployment benefits, the Department of Education, the EPA, etc.

So, with this sourced and understood as fact, not only is there no possible way for the United States government to default on its debt interest payments, it would be impossible – but for politically motivated action initiated by President Obama himself – not to be able to pay Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

How Destructively Disingenuous Can They Get?

by Frank Salvato on Friday, July 1st, 2011

This is article 204 of 522 in the topic Government Spending

As if the American public’s tolerance for political chicanery hasn’t been tested beyond the breaking point, now comes news that several shyster Progressives and Democrats are floating the notion that the debt ceiling is – get this – unconstitutional. Far be it from me to ask, but why is it the only time Progressives and Democrats concern themselves with the constitutionality of issues is when its concern their ability to spend money?

US Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) – you remember him, he’s the candidate that Delawareans deemed better suited to represent them than Christine O’Donnell; the one who wrote an article for his college newspaper, entitled “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist” – is quoted as saying:

“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default…I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’”

Great choice, Delawareans…you should be proud.

Now, most clear thinking Americans, when examining the depth of the financial crisis – the deficit spending and the debt accrued – have already come to the overwhelming conclusion that our elected officials – and the apparatus they have constructed in the federal bureaucracy – have taken to outrageous, unacceptable and, in no uncertain terms, grotesque spending habits. They have created such a financial catastrophe that in poll after poll, the American public agrees that spending by the US federal government must be not only reined in, but limited from this point forward so that the ideologues and social engineering zealots can’t bring our nation to the brink of non-existence, such as we find ourselves today.

Make no mistake, when I say federal government I am not just speaking of Democrats; many Republicans and, without question, each and every Progressive are included. In fact, where Progressives are concerned – seeing as their ideology is basically Marxism with a Madison Avenue sell job – spending other people’s money “for the good of the people” is in the DNA.

But now, as if to take a red-hot poker from the fire of disingenuous opportunism only to stick it directly into the cornea of the American people’s eye, we have Progressives and Democrats feigning that they give a damn about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling, and for what reason? They do so for the sole purpose of ignoring a fiscally responsible practice of restricting debt to what can legitimately be repaid. They do so to facilitate their continued borrowing and spending. They do so to continue our national descent into indigence. They do so to continue their ideological agenda of wealth redistribution.

The Huffington Post reports Sen. Patty Murray (P-WA), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as saying:

“…the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context — that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending…‘The way everybody talks about this is that we need to raise the debt ceiling.

Click to continue reading “How Destructively Disingenuous Can They Get?”
Go straight to Post

Legislating Through Regulations

by Frank Salvato on Friday, June 24th, 2011

This is article 76 of 188 in the topic Government Regulations

I have often written about “the bright shiny thing,” an event that is sure to catch the mainstream media’s and public’s eye while, in fact, something much more important is taking place. It is a common practice amongst politicos from both sides of the aisle, but a practice heavily employed by the Progressive Left. Movies have even been made about it. Wag the Dog comes to mind as a perfect, albeit fictitious, example of the execution of a “bright, shiny thing” strategy.

The Obama Administration, having completely annihilated any claim to being a “transparent” government, uses the “bright, shiny thing” strategy with an artful, even if nefarious, prowess, doing so while maintaining plausible deniability. As a life-long student of Chicago politics, to watch this administration employ the “bright, shiny thing” strategy is to watch an exercise in political beauty, even if it is being employed to usurp the founding philosophies of our nation, while paying short-shrift to the United States Constitution.

The Obama Administration’s use of the “bright, shiny thing” strategy has been one of subtle consistency. Shortly after Mr. Obama’s election, then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, was quoted as saying,

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before…”

By stepping into the spotlight and declaring what all politicos understand, but would never have the nerve to say, Mr. Emanuel – unwittingly or otherwise – confirmed the existence and favored use of the “bright, shiny thing” strategy by the political class and, especially, the Progressive Movement. This strategy has been used to win elections, to salvage political careers, to move agendas forward and to pass legislation in the midnight hour. Today, the Obama Administration uses this very strategy to attempt to establish legislation by regulation.

Legislation by regulation can be succinctly described as the Executive Branch executing cabinet level agency policy directives to subordinate Executive Branch agencies (i.e. the Justice Department mandating regulatory policy to the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security issuing directives to ICE, or the Treasury Department issuing dictates to the IRS) resulting in regulations that serve, effectively – and in the end, as legislation. The execution of such policy usurps the authority of the Legislative Branch in its exclusive constitutional authority to craft legislation. The use of this tactic transgresses the already damaged Separation of Powers.

A perfect example of the implementation of legislation by regulation comes in the Obama Administration’s move to control greenhouse gases (otherwise known as CO2, the stuff of which we all exhale) through EPA regulatory compliance.

Knowing full well that any attempt to move the junk science of climate change through Congress as Cap and Trade legislation would be met with devastating defeat, the Obama Administration and its Czars and Czarinas decided to implement a strategy to force the American private sector into compliance via EPA regulation. Armed with a Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the EPA to designate CO2 as a pollutant, the Obama Administration found itself inclined to do just that.

Recently, the EPA’s Lisa Jackson was caught advancing an outrageous level of propaganda in touting amendments to the Clean Air Act in what many see as an attempt to validate the practice of legislation by regulation.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Greece Is the Word

by Frank Salvato on Friday, June 17th, 2011

This is article 4 of 82 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

Greece, the cradle of democracy, is experiencing chaotic violence at the hands of Socialists and anarchists. That country’s Socialist government has come to a moment in time – like most Socialist and Marxist enterprises – when the system has failed. The promises of the Nanny State and prefectorial centralized government have come up empty and “the people” are angry as a result. Of course, “the people,” the ones who, today, are refusing to realize that you can’t bleed a turnip, are exactly the ones who are to blame for the situation they are in. If the citizenry of the United States of America isn’t careful and willing to make some painful adjustments, economically, we may be starring this future directly in the eye.

Today, We the People – we Americans, stand at a moment in time when a very hard decision needs to be made; honestly, the fate of the nation rides upon it. We can either follow the path of the Socialist Greeks; the path that has led them to national bankruptcy, debt and that nation’s unenviable position as the fuse for a global economic chain reaction that would send the world into the depths of an economic abyss the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Great Depression, or we can feel a good deal of pain in the form of sacrifice so that our country might continue to exist for future generations.

At this crossroads, We the People find ourselves confronted by some very uncomfortable questions. Are we willing to push ourselves back from the “feed trough” of government dependence? Are we willing to embrace self-imposed personal responsibility, charity and self-reliance? Or are we too uncaring of our nation’s well-being that greed is somehow justified; too narcissistic to abstain from the too easy to attain government entitlement; too self-absorbed and addicted to the “I’ve got mine, to Hell with you” machinations of the Progressive “Me Generation”?

Since the Wilson Administration, and bolstered by the Roosevelt and Johnson Administrations, our form of government has been under siege by forces seeking to transform it from its Constitutionally Republican genesis to a Progressive Democracy, or Socialist Democracy, as it were. The first step came in two phases, which the forces of the Progressive Movement executed with great success. In tandem, the Progressives: a) sold the citizenry on the need for a government administered social “safety net,” and, b) sold the citizenry the notion that our country employs a democratic form of government.

The first milestone, the government-administered societal safety net came to full force in the form of Social Security. Truthfully, at its advent, President Franklin Roosevelt had planned for the Social Security initiative to transform from the government sector to the private sector, but political opportunists and Progressives, as they are inclined to do, saw an opportunity to access more capital for government use and failed to transition the program to the private sector.

Elected officials of a clear mind knew from the start that Social Security was, in the long run, unsustainable as a program exclusive to government administration, and, in the very least, dependent on an ever increasing population to be successful.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Choosing Our Own Candidate, What a Concept

by Frank Salvato on Friday, June 3rd, 2011

This is article 83 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

As we approach the true beginning of the 2012 election cycle, the Republican slate of candidates is starting to take shape. Many among those who count themselves as Republicans hold great hope that 2012 will bring to an end a four year reign of irresponsible spending on social engineering issues that – if not by design, almost certainly on purpose – has led our country to a place of fiscal insolvency, national insecurity and diminished stature around the world. But regardless of who finally rounds out the slate of Conservative, Constitutionalist, Libertarian-leaning and Republican candidates in the official Republican field, we are still hobbled by a primary election process that frontloads the results to the Democrat and Progressive advantage.

Each year, the many candidates that vie for a position on the slates of the challenging parties to the incumbent party spend a great amount of time in the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. This reality includes any potential Republican and/or Conservative candidates, and yes there is a difference. But this reality, the reality of the cyclical trek to these two states begs a question, exclusively for those who stand opposed to the expansion of government, the decline of the Constitution and American sovereignty, and the advancement of Progressivism:

Why do Conservatives vying for the GOP nomination subject themselves, the party and the GOP constituency to the results, before all others, from two states that have traditionally voted for the Democrat in a majority of the presidential contests of the 20th and 21st Centuries? How does that divine the best candidate for the Republican Party?

Since 1988, Iowa has voted for the Democrat candidate in the Presidential Election by a margin of 5 to 1, the lone exception being in 2004 when they voted for George w, Bush, the attacks of September 11, 2001, still fresh in their minds. But that means that, minus the motivation of an attack on our homeland, they voted for Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton – twice – and Michael Dukakis…Michael Dukakis!

New Hampshire is but a scant bit better, voting for the Democrat 4 to 1 since 1992, championing the likes of Barack Obama, John Kerry and Bill Clinton twice.

So, again I ask, why does the Republican National Committee continue to reward Blue states with undeniable influence in determining who the Republican candidate will be in the General Election by allowing them to establish the frontrunners for the GOP? Does this make any sense?

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the establishmentarians of the national Republic Party hierarchy do not appreciate the peon voters dictating to them who the candidates will or will not be. The inside-the-beltway Republican leadership – and many times the many state Republican leadership apparatuses as well – are ensconced in the “pecking order” mindset; the “it’s his turn,” quid pro quo tenets of “good old boy” politics.

This in and of itself is a shame and it should cause great angst among true Conservatives and true Republicans.

The Republican Party was not set-up to mirror the Democrat Party apparatus. The Democrat Party apparatus is set-up to be a top-down, authoritative organization that presents candidates to its constituent masses for approval. The Democrats “create” their candidates, ala Dr.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Mistake of Global Democratization

by Frank Salvato on Friday, May 27th, 2011

We are hearing a great deal about a budding “Democracy movement” spreading throughout the Middle East. Many are calling it an “Arab Spring.” The belief is that after centuries of totalitarian oppression, the Arab street is suddenly pining for more freedom; rebelling against the elitist ruling class of kings, emirs, despots and tyrants. This is most likely true for a great number of those filling the streets of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and myriad other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim nations. But there is a less than honorable component amongst the rebellion that simply waits for the “right” to a democratic vote. Contrary to how the idea of a move to Democracy presents, in the volatile Middle East there are elements in play that could make it a move in the wrong direction.

Each and every day we hear the misnomer that the United States of America is a Democracy. We hear it from the average man on the street, the mainstream media and even from those we have elected to office. But the fact of the matter is this: we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A thorough and convincing exhibit of the facts surrounding this reality is presented in Notes on Democracy: And the Republic for Which It Stands. The fact that this issue is even in need of address is a scathing commentary on the constitutional illiteracy of the American electorate and serves as a sobering reminder that, often times, what sounds good – what “feels good” – isn’t always as it presents.

The distinction – between the benefits of a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic – is incredibly important, and while some describe our nation as a Democracy in an error of ignorance, others – some with schemes of political opportunism – do so with a nefarious purpose and bad intentions.

James Madison, recognized as the Father of the US Constitution, said this about factions and Democracy in Federalist No. 10:

“Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Creating Poverty Through ‘Social Justice’

by Frank Salvato on Saturday, May 14th, 2011

We have been hearing a lot about “social justice,” during the tenure of the Obama Administration. From Eric Holder to John Holdren, Lisa Jackson to Van Jones to President Obama himself, the goal of social justice appears to be at the forefront of Mr. Obama’s agenda for the country. But while the term sounds innocuous enough, the goal itself is quite sinister and the road to getting there creates havoc and waste but for the chosen few.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle article proves this point beyond doubt:

“San Francisco’s much-heralded ‘social justice’ requirements for city contracts are costing local taxpayers millions of dollars a year in overcharges, according to workers in departments ranging from the Municipal Transportation Agency to the Department of Emergency Management.

“In one case, a Muni worker said the city paid $3,000 for a vehicle battery tray. Such parts can be found online for $12 to $300, depending on the type of vehicle…

“Other city purchasing policies, if followed, would mean paying about $240 for getting a copy of a key that actually cost a worker $1.35 to get done at a hardware store on his break, the employee said. Another city worker called the use of catalog pricing for supplies ‘Pentagon-style purchasing.’

“Markups from approved vendors range from 10 to 150 percent, employees said, with one calling the city’s requirement that contractors provide health care benefits for domestic partners ‘the expensive white elephant standing in the middle of the room (that) no one wants to mention.’

“Some vendors are suspected of being little more than middlemen who comply with San Francisco’s very specific requirements for contractors – like disclosing historic ties to slavery and providing domestic partner benefits, a provision known as 12B because of its chapter in the Administrative Code – then turn around and buy the products from companies that don’t meet the restrictions, city officials acknowledge.

“An analysis by the General Services Agency found that in the last complete fiscal year, 2009-10, the city paid $9.8 million to ‘possible third-party brokers’ – vendors that may be pass-through companies.”

Imagine that, a city with a $306 million budget deficit, from a state with a $15.4 billion deficit, justifying the over-payment of taxpayer dollars to what is essentially special interest affirmative action groups in the private sector by claiming it satisfies the quest for “social justice.”

If this is the path to social justice, then we have to conclude that social justice and free market Capitalism are not compatible. If this is the path to social justice, then we have to conclude that it only creates debt and poverty but for the chosen few. But, then, this should be no surprise seeing as social justice is a product of the Progressive Movement; a movement founded in the ideology of socialism derived from Marxism.

One of the Four Pillars of the Green Party, an ideologically Progressive group, social justice is defined as:

“…based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Bin Laden ‘Get’: It’s Called Doing Your Duty

by Frank Salvato on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

This is article 41 of 783 in the topic Terrorism

Osama bin Laden is dead, killed at the hands of the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG), commonly known as “DEVGRU” and informally by its former name, SEAL Team Six. To be certain, justice has been served where Osama bin Laden is concerned. The murderer of the victims of September 11, 2001 – and myriad other innocent victims and military personnel – will stand in judgment for his actions, now answerable to a much higher authority. Make no mistake; this is a good thing, a very good thing. But it is a singular “thing” – a singular component in a much larger and more serious issue.

Pres. Obama took to the airwaves on May 2nd, shortly before midnight, and declared,

“Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children…at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”

Almost instantaneously FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, the entire complement of the alphabet media, began televising the “spontaneous” gathering of what appeared to be college-aged young adults outside the White House and in New York’s Times Square. Chants of “USA!” could be heard amid the choruses of “Nah-nah-nah-nah, Hey-ey-ey, Goodbye.” It was celebratory; almost surreal; spectacle-like. Geraldo was a giddy as a school girl. Rush Limbaugh said of Geraldo’s emotional explosion that he thought it was the closest thing to an orgasm he has seen on television.

As instantaneously as the mainstream media started to exploit rightful jubilation, so too did a thought cross my mind about the scene playing out before me: How quickly would the Taliban, al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations exploit these images to incite the recruitment of another generation of militants?

Now, don’t get me wrong, each and every American – each and every freedom loving anti-terrorist on the face of the planet – has every right to be celebratory over the events that took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan, over the course of the early morning hours of May 2nd, 2011. But I do have an issue with the mainstream media airing prolonged video of the street celebrations, newsworthy or not.

While many on Facebook and the other social networking sites entered into obstinate discussions about not blaming the street celebrators or taking ideological stands about free speech rights, I couldn’t help but think that we, as a people, should have celebrated this moment with a reverence fit for honoring those who were slaughtered on September 11, 2001. I also couldn’t help but feel that the mainstream media editors and producers who chose to exploit the images of those revelers failed to use vision in their decision to do so. I couldn’t help but feel that their actions placed emotion over what may or may not be best for our US military men and women who remain in the field; who remain in harm’s way.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

When Politics Damages the Constitution

by Frank Salvato on Friday, April 22nd, 2011

This is article 10 of 184 in the topic US Constitution

The issue of eligibility where the federal government’s Executive Branch is concerned is not one of politics; it is not, in any way, shape or form related to the so-called “birther” issue. The issue of presidential eligibility is one that addresses the protection of our citizenry’s fidelity to the United States Constitution. Yet many disingenuous political operatives – who put the well-being of their political parties or special interests above honesty and good government – and many pundits, editors and producers – unwittingly or otherwise – have seen clear to blur the lines between the “birther” issue and an honest movement to affect the closing of a loophole unforeseen by our Founders and Framers.

With the stunning news that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had vetoed legislation that would have required a candidate for the Executive Branch of the federal government to provide first-source prerequisite materials proving his or her satisfaction of Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, one of the more promising doors to protecting unqualified candidates from accessing the federal ballot slammed shut.

In her letter to Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams, she wrote:

“I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions…I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State. This is a bridge too far.”

Gov. Brewer then went on to tell FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren:

“…you know, bottom line is, is that I just have to call them as I see them. And it doesn’t help Arizona. This bill is a distraction, and we just simply need to get on with the state’s business.”

There are two fundamental and monumental flaws to Gov. Brewer’s rationale for making such a political decision where the well-being of the nation is concerned:

1) If, in fact, the legislation was to be a distraction, the “distraction” would have already taken place in the form of debate on the issue. The “distraction” – if you can call enacting legislation that would have simply asked candidates for the highest office in the land to prove their eligibility – had already passed. The noise surrounding her veto caused more of a distraction – and, incidentally, more animosity among the Republican base (allegedly Brewer’s base) – than if she would have simply signed the legislation into law.

2) The proposed law outlined a series of documents for certification as having been presented for satisfaction of USC Article II, Section 1 including either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record. The Secretary of State would only be charged with certifying that the documents were real pursuant to criteria set forth by the issuing states.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin